In Blender, how do I get a texture to repeat on each face precisely rather than stretch over the whole mesh?
Whenever I type my question into Google, it comes up with stuff completely different from what I want no matter how I try wording the question. One square in terrain == one copy of image, is what I'm looking for.
>>501235
There(pic related) you put in the size.
If you put 2 in the size it will tile 2 times.
>>501243
Is there no way to UV map each poly face to 0-1 UV space like Maya's Unitize function?
>>501244
>maya
its called mapping and you can use it with cycles nodes
>>501235
Select everything, press U for the UV mapping options, then click Reset. That should do it.
In Max you just use a UVmap modifier set to face.
>>501235
select one face in edit mode.
uv unwrap.
the texture will repeat for every face you have.
and i'm fuckin' drunk.
real shit doe.
>>501243
>gives blender render answer
listen, bitch.
there's no need to backtrack.
cycles is the answer.
not like it matters anyway, what >>501269 said works for any renderer.
>>501284
generate a texture without changing UVs
>>501269
>>501271
What am I missing here?
>>501287
a game
>>501287
Select all the faces, not just one.
>>501287
In edit mode, select all the faces you want repeated.
Click Shading/UVs.
Click the dropdown for unwrap and choose "Follow active quads."
Set up your material. The texture will be repeated on every face you had selected.
It's actually super easy. Select all your faces in edit mode, hit the U key to bring up unwrapping options, and choose 'reset.'
>>501284
>Why does the renderer matter
because blender render is shit.
in 3.0 it's full on cycles.
>>501284
It doesn't matter for the UV location data, but each renderer has other special features like modifiers and nodes that you could use to achieve this as well, and then those solutions are renderer-dependent.
>>501368
That's fucked up, UV's are object based. Not renderer based. The tools shouldn't be tied to the fucking renderer.
No wonder you fuckers struggle so much with Blender if even changing renderers changes your basic functionality tools.
>>501270
>>501362
>there is absolutely no use for blender render anymore, cycles everything
Tells me that you got no clue. For instance I can work on my model while seeing what it will look like in real time rendering applications like games.
How would you know making static renders of unoptimized models that got no use outside your cycles render. Maybe one day if you keep practicing your cycles skills you will make it on the featured row at blenderartists.org, that would be the day of your life.
>>501380
But does Cycles have a better UV toolset?
Would one do the UVs in one and then switch over to the other?
>>501382
>But does Cycles have a better UV toolset?
No, UV unwraping tools are the same throughout Blender.
>>501373
Disregard everything the troll said about Blender. They don't know what they're talking about.
UV, modifiers, etc. are the same no matter what renderer you use. It's only materials that are different.
>>501362
>in 3.0 it's full on cycles.
Hey Doc Brown, you missed. You need to go forward about four or five years.
>>501373
I don't think you quite understand how it works
UVs are not affected by the renderer, they are created by the DCCS and fed into the renderer. Fundamentally UV data is part of the geometry, not of the material.
but you can affect what the renderer does with UVs, as it's up to the renderer to interpret them. Most modern renderers can interpret UVs at least in a few different ways (normal UV maps (in a few different variations), ptex, ...)
Most renderers are also flexible enough to give you a system to program/manipulate what is done with UVs, like a node-system. Obviously that's not something you want to do 90% of the time (since it ties you down to the renderer), but every renderer allows you to do it
>>501389
Don't blame me for the retarded explanations of blender users.
So basically what this thread boils down to is that the core UV tools are insufficient.
>>501400
Insufficient for what, exactly?
It is perfectly capable of doing what OP wanted.
>>501400
No, both the UV tools in blender as well as the UV manipulation capabilities of all renderers (such as cycles, blender internal, vray, lux, ...) are sufficient to solve the problem.
The point is that >>501243 gave a solution that works at the material level, and hence is specific to the renderer (blender internal, in this case, but could be any renderer) -- while that works and can be the correct/more powerful solution in some cases, that's not good advice to give to a newcomer, since it is both specific to one renderer and more work than to just do it using the UV tools in blender directly. If you know exactly how your content pipeline is going to work, it's fine to rely on renderer-specific features, but even then, for this case there's no point.
Doing it using the UV tools actually only requires four clicks/keypresses -- 1) switch to face selection mode, 2) click on any face, 3) press "u" to bring up the UV tool menu 4) click "unwrap".
